Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 U.S. 753 - Collins v. Gilbert

Collins v. Gilbert’s Empirical Analysis

94 U.S. 753 · 1876

Citation profile

98
cited by 98 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
June 2005
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 98 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2005 · most notably Railroad Company v. National Bank (1880), Cromwell v. County of Sac (1877)

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 23 states

23018761880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Murray v. Lardner · Andrews v. Pond · Bank of Pittsburgh v. Neal · Magee v. . Badger

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““(1) A negotiable instrument, payable to bearer, or indorsed in blank, produced by a transferee suing to recover its contents, is, when received in evidence, clothed with the prima facie presumption that he became the holder of it for value at its date in the usual course of business, without notice of any thing to impeach his title. “(2) The title of a bona fide holder for value of an accepted draft, indorsed • in blank, is not affected by the fact that the party from whom he received it before its maturity had possession of it for certain purposes, and misappropriated it.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Where the supposed defect or infirmity in the title of the instrument appears on its face at the time of the transfer, the question whether the party who took it had notice or not is, in general, a question of construction, and must be determined by the court as matter of law. Andrews v. Pond, 13 Pet. 65 [ 10 L. Ed. 61 ]; Fowler v. Brantly, 14 Pet. 318 [ 10 L. Ed. 473 ]; Brown v. Davis, 3 T. R, 86.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.